You knew it was coming…
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/politics/24CND-GAY.html
So now that’s it’s here I have two questions.
First, can someone refresh me as to how the ratification process works?
Second, (and this is the great debates part) do we really need an constitutional amendment to deal with this issue?
Identical texts for the proposed amendment must be passed by 2/3 supermajorities of both the House and the Senate (290 votes in the House, 67 votes in the Senate).
That same text must then be ratified by 3/4 of the states, by whatever means the legislatures of the states choose, usually within seven years.
Only if you’re religious fanatic with a passionate hatred of gay people and a burning desire to see gays forever cast into the darkness of second-class citizenship. These folks are often called “Republicans.”
First, an amendment has to be approved by 2/3 of each house of Congress. Then it must be approved by 3/4 of the states. Here’s an interesting site on constitutional amendments. Lately the latter has a time constraint on it, usually seven years.
Second, no. Nor do we need to worry about passing one so Arnold can be President. Jeez, don’t we have enough real problems in this country to worry about right now?
For those without a handy copy of the United States Constitution
Article V lays out the mode of amendment: two-thirds of both the House and the Senate must pass the amendment, which then must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.
Or if you’re committed to the separation of federal and state powers, and wish to avoid federal encroachment on an issue that should be decided by states’ laws.
These folks are often called “correct.” Persons using hyperbole to demonize their opponents without any grasp of the legal issues involved are often called spectrum.
As to the substance, I’ll only say that of the two times we’ve used the amendment process to address social issues, one involved slavery, a fairly substantial issue, and the other involved prohibition of alchohol, which we were forced to repeal relatively soon thereafter. I think the lesson to be learned from the 18th Amendment is that social legislation should rarely be accomplished through the amendment process.
How many of the states require a popular vote for ratification?
NO! And again I say, NO!
I have yet to see a cogent argument from the perspective of social policy, National Defense or Constitutional Theory that speaks to a need for the Federal Government to define marriage, or for the Constitution to lay out its boundaries.
What is it about same-sex couples that so incenses the absolutists among us, that the Polygamists in Utah have not managed to tap into (don’t answer that, it’s a rhetorical question)?
But on the other hand, maybe we do need it. Not the amendment as proposed - it’s flip-side. What happens to the legal survivalship, power-of-attorney, inheritance, and other rights of a couple, (hypthetically and ) legally married in California, who then move to Alabama?
Once this current silliness is past, we will need to ensure universal legal protection for all married couples in all states - will **that ** require a Constitutional Amendment?
(Okay, I’ve strayed too far not to be a hijack, and for that I apologize).
As much as I appreciate what you are trying to say regarding spectrum’s “Republican” crack, you’ve managed to reverse the issue.
You’ve now stated that the people who need a constitutional ammendment to deal with the issue are those who are “committed to the separation of federal and state powers, and wish to avoid federal encroachment on an issue that should be decided by states’ laws.” I would think that if this issue should be decided by the states, they would be against the ammendment.
Or have I missed something?
Let’s take the partisan vitriol out of this and look at the facts:
Since when have all Republicans been religious fanatics? Not all republicans are fundies, you know.
interesting pull John Mace. i saw two polls earlier this year that showed 60% in favor of a ban on gay marriage when the question was phrased like “do you support the state recognition that marriage is between one man and one woman?” and somewhere near 40% when the question was phrased like “do you support the prohibition of marriage between two gay men or two lesbian women?”
i’ll see if i can dig it up. if anyone else knows what i’m talking about, feel free to help!
errrr poll.
and in case anyone missed it, my point was that support for this depends on how it is phrased, and does not appear to be the “overwhelming majority” that mr. bush claimed it to be in his speech.
I think it could be argued that most of the constitutional amendments have social issues at their core. Voting rights for blacks and women, the Bill of Rights etc.
That being said the amendment process should only be used in cases that are so divisive that the states can not settle it. As Lincoln said," A house divided against itself can not stand…"
Is this issue so divisive. Remains to be seen. IMHO if there is an amendment it should be that gays have the right to marry.
This amendment would trample all over the rights of states, by blocking them from even considering gay marriage —OR CIVIL UNIONS. This amendment will rip apart thousands of gay families in this country, will forever render gays second class citizens.
Of course, the bigots are all for it. I’m sure they get hard ons thinking of the suffering that this will cause gays. Why don’t you just get a fucking tire iron and bash my skull in? It’d hurt a whole lot less.
If America passes this amendment, then I hope America burns and dies.
But wouldn’t that make those folks against the amendment, which would most certainly prevent states from deciding themselves?
Spectrum was speaking of the folk for the amendment, I assume.
(on preview I see Trion asked much the same thing. I had a phone call while writing this…)
Very interesting polling data in John Mace’s cite. This near equal division of popular opinion, (a mere 57-38 split even among Republicans), indicates to me that an Amendment would be extremely ill-advised. The Constitution is in my opinion one of the finest works of man, and we should amend it only with extreme caution. I favor amendments only when correcting a practical oversight (presidential succession) or to correct and eliminate issues of discrimination (woman suffrage, abolition of slavery). Some issues (prohibition, definition of marriage) do not warrant amendments but are better left to the states.
Just go to the link I provided. There are lots of other poll questions asked about gay marriage that don’t focus on the constitutional amendment.
I’m guessing Bricker said it backwards, too.
As near as I know, the only amendment that limited what private citizens could do was Prohibition, and we know how well that worked. The Constitution doesn’t take kindly to being used to limit freedoms.
Daniel